Host-Guest Opposition As a Model of Geo-Political Relations in Pre-Imperial China1

Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China1

Maria Khayutina

The theme of hospitality as of one of the most important social and political institutions, known from the very dawn of civilization and not less relevant today, has attracted a great deal of attention from philosophers and historians alike, especially during recent decades.2 The fact that this theme has taken on renewed interest is largely due to the intensification of physical human traffic all over the world3 and to the specifics of the present moment, when apart from the habitual spatio- temporal dimensions, hospitality acquires an informational dimension and transits from the sphere of physical geography to that of virtual space.4 The diversity of contexts in which this subject may be discussed indicates the complexity and multi-functionality of this model of human communication. Moreover, whereas the concepts of hospitality are present in every language, its representations and practices may vary to a great extent from culture to culture, as well as within a single culture with the current of time. This article explores the representations of hospitality and its role in geo-political relations in late pre-imperial China and focuses on the two aspects: 1) Which function did the model of hospitality have in the representation of the historical past? 2) Which relationship between “hosts” and “guests” did the ancient Chinese model of hospitality imply?

1 I would like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (Germany) for sponsoring my project entitled “Hos- pitality in Ancient China (11th – 5th c. B.C.): Sacral, Social and Political Aspects” at the Ruhr-University Bochum, as well as making possible the preparation of this article for publication. 2 Cf. Bolchazy, Ladislaus J.: Hospitality in Early Rome. Livy’s concept of its humanizing force. Chicago: Ares Publishers Inc., 1977; Hellmuth, Leopold: Gastfreundschaft und Gastrecht bei den Germanen, Wien: Österreichische Akademie der Wissen- schaften, 1984; Schérér, René: Zeus hospitalier. Elogue de l’hospitalité : essai philosophique. Paris: Armand Colin, 1993; Gotman, Anne (ed.): L’hospitalité. Lonrai: Seuil, Ecole des Hautes études en sciences sociales. Centre d’études transdisciplinaires (Sociologie, Anthropologie, Histoire) 65 (1997) ; Derrida, Jacques: “De l’hospitalité”, in Anne Du- fourmantelle invite Jacques Derrida à répondre de l’hospitalité, Paris: Calmann-Levy, 1997; Marinovich, L. P., Mayak, I. L. (ed.) Zakon i obychai gostepriimstva v antichnom mire (Law and Custom of Hospitality in the Ancient World), Moscow: Institut Vseobschei Istorii RAN, 1998; Khayutina, Maria: “Instituty “druzei” I “gostei” v drevnem Kitae. Evolyuciya social’nyh I politicheskih yavlenii I sootvetstvuyushei terminologii v periody Zapadnogo Zhou, Chunqiu i Zhanguo. (Institutions of “friends” and “guests” in Ancient China. Evolution of the social and politic phenomena and of the appropriate terminology during the Western Zhou, Springs and Autumns and Warring States periods). Diss., Moscow, 1999; Montandon, Alain (ed.): Mythes et représentations de l’hospitalité. Études rassemblées et présentées par Alain Montandon. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Univer- sitaires Blaise-Pascal, 1999; Montandon, Alain (ed.): Espaces domestiques et privés de l’hospitalité. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal, 2000; Khayutina, Maria: “‘Druz’ja’ i ‘gosti’ v drevnem Kitae. Zapadnoe Zhou – period Chunqiu (XI – V vv. do n. e.)” (“‘Friends’ and ‘Guests’ in Ancient China. Western Zhou – Chunqiu period (XI – V cc. BC), in Bessmertny Yu. L. (ed.) Chelovek v mire chuvstv. Ocherki po istorii chastnoi zhizni v Evrope I nekotoryh stranah Asii do nachala Novogo vremeni [Man in the World of Feeling. Essays on the History of Private Life in Europe and in Certain Countries of Asia before the Modern Times]. Moscow: RGGU, 2000, pp. 221-42; Montandon, Alain (ed.): Lieux d’hospitalité. Hospices, hôpital, hostellerie. Clermont-Ferrand: Presses Universitaires Blaise-Pascal, 2001. 3 Hospitality is often discussed in connection with the problem of international migration, esp. with regard to the asylum right and the expulsion of illegal immigrants (cf. Schérér 1993, p. 16). 4 Cf. Derrida’s contemplations of hospitality effectuated via modern electronic media, such as telephone, fax, e-mail and the Internet (cf. Derrida 1997, pp. 45-61).

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 78 Maria Khayutina

I Models of Hospitality

Hospitality may be approached as a multi-dimensional phenomenon of human communication. At its simplest, it may be reduced to the Scheme I,

A B

where subject B (“guest”) enters a space, which subject A (“host”) defines as its “own”. Thus, A regards B as “alien”. From B’s perspective the same situation is reversed, as he transgresses from his “own” to A’s “alien” space. From a temporal perspective, hospitality may be effectuated as a single action (Scheme II) or as a long-term process5 (Scheme III). It may or may not be equally reciprocal, i.e. a “host” may always act only as “host”, and a “guest” always may stay a “guest”, or they may interchange their roles6 (Scheme III).

II “border” III “border” A A A B

B B B A

t t

meeting meetings

The situation of being a guest is transitional between being a member of a certain social, political and territorial entity and being absolutely foreign, strange, and extraneous to it. Despite the length of mutual interaction and, in some cases, interchange of roles, the border between a guest’s “alien” and a

5 Well-known example of long-term hospitality is the xenia of the ancient Greeks – a cohesion, which lasted not only through the lifetime of the counterparts, but also could be inherited by their descendants. 6 Philippe Gauthier argues that “the practice of hospitality implies reciprocity, at least a potential one” (Gauthier, Phil- ippe: “Notes sur l’étranger et l’hospitalité en Grêce et à Rome”, in: Ancient Society 1973.4, pp. 1-21, p. 5, transl. by the author of this paper). However, it is not necessary that hospitality offered by a host to a guest supposes an equal reply, i. e. hospitality, by the latter in the future. Paul Veyne, while discussing the practice of theoxenia and lectisternes (invita- tions of gods) in Greco-Roman antiquity, reasonably raises the question: “Did the humans and gods have this bilateral relation, or the religion was made of unilateral homages?” (Paul Veyne, “Inviter les dieux, sacrifier, banqueter. Quelques nuances de la religiosité gréco-romaine”, in: Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 2000.1, pp. 3-42, p. 3, transl. by the author of this paper). The rituals of ancestral cult in Shang and Zhou China were also similar to theoxenia: the spirits were invited to guest (bin) at the ancestral temple (cf. Chang Tsung-tung: Der Kult der Shang-Dynastie im Spiegel der Orakelinschriften. Eine paläographische Studie zur Religion im archaischen China. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1970, p. 227; Chang, Taiping: The Ritual and Sacrificial Terms of the Shang Oracle Texts of Period I. Diss. (1981). London: University Microfilms Intl., 1987, pp. 261-264; Granet, Marcel, Danses et légendes de la Chine ancienne, Paris: Presses universitaires de France, (1926). 3-e ed. 1994, p. 129). Such hospitality obviously did not suppose an equal “horizontal” reciprocity, but only a “vertical” one.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 79 host’s “own” may not disappear unless some substantive changes affect the guest’s or the host’s status (Scheme IV)7. However, for many reasons fixation of such transitional status may satisfy both sides. IV “border” A C B C t

meetings status change

There may be different grades of transition between the “own” and the “alien”, conditioned by various personal, social, cultural, economic and political circumstances. Often the degree of transition and established distance between the counterparts is marked by appropriate terminology8 (Scheme V). V B A C D

The interaction of hospitality may proceed on various levels of social and political organization, starting from that of single private persons to that of large political entities, such as states or international alliances. Hospitality is possible not only between counterparts on equal footing, such as two persons, two social groups, two states (Scheme VI a), but also between unequal ones, such as a person and a group, a group and a state (Scheme VI b), or a person and a state (Scheme VI c). Each combination has its own nuances, and may be a subject of psychological, sociological, ethnological, or politological analysis. VI a b c A B A A B B h h h C Functions of hospitality and results of such interaction differ so much from one another that it is not possible to suggest one single notion of hospitality, which could comprise the whole spectrum of related meanings. Moreover, the terminology and phraseology of hospitality may be applied to different and sometimes cardinally opposite types of relationship.9 One can only decide which type of cohesion is referred to once one has understood the different contexts in which the terms of hospitality are used. In the present paper I will focus on the representation of hospitality as a model of relationship between state, quasi-state, and intra-state structures in Ancient China.

7 For example, in case of interpersonal relations, the counterparts may become friends or relatives. 8 For example, one may “come to guest”, “to be invited”, “to visit”, “to come”, to be a “honored guest”, a “house- guest”, a “visitor”, or “indiscreet visitor”. 9 The concepts of “guest”, the xenos of the ancient Greeks, hostis/hospes of the ancient Romans, or bin/ke of the ancient Chinese are ambiguous in each of these languages (cf. Benveniste, Émile. Le vocabulaire des institutions indo-européennes. Pa- ris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1969, Vol. I, p. 92). A guest is someone for whom the transition of a border is allowed, and who is expected to behave peacefully, but he may be also one who transgresses a border and comes as an invader.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 80 Maria Khayutina

II The Bamboo Annals – the First Written History of China? Most of the ancient Chinese sources demonstrate a careful selection of terminology for each case of what may be called the “visit-entertainment exchange” between political entities on various levels. The vocabulary of hospitality was not only applied referring to the physical meetings between political figures, but also was used in a larger metaphoric, or it may be said, theoretic sense. In certain contexts it demonstrated a hierarchical relationship between geo-political entities of various levels, nature and size, where a leading one was positioned as a “host”, while its dependants were regarded as “guests”.10 This model may be retraced in many of Eastern Zhou and later sources. One of them deserves special attention, since such political hospitality appears to be one of its main subjects. This is the Jinben zhushu jinian 今本竹書紀年 (Current Bamboo Annals), plausibly compiled in the middle War- ring States (Zhanguo 戰國, 403–221 BC) period.11 Despite the title “annals”, the BA is not an immediate chronicle, but probably one of the earliest examples of a written history in China.12 Therefore, this source is especially precious as one of

10 In particular, this model was realized in the conception of bin fu (“the duties of guests”), often referred to in Warring States polemic writings. See below. 11 The Bamboo Annals (hereinafter BA) chronicle was discovered in AD 281 in the grave of Ai Xiang, the King of Wei, who died in 299 BC (for the review of bibliography and debate of authenticity cf. Nivison David S.: “Chu shu chi nien”, in: Loewe, Michael (ed.), Early Chinese Texts: A Bibliographical Guide. Berkeley: The Society for the Study of Early China, 1993, pp. 39-47.). The discovery was reported in Jin shu. Later dynastic histories and other sources refer to and quote from the BA. According to the Xin Tang shu, the original included 14 juan, but the Song shu lists only a Zhushu in 3 juan. The received version consists only of two juan. The lost chapters probably were not annalistic; at least one of them was entitled as “Commands and Responses”. The available version of the BA was published during the Ming period by Fan Jin (1508–85) (cf. Nivison 1993, pp. 43-44). It is evident that the gan-zhi dates of years could be added to the original text after its discovery during the Jin (AD 265–420) or later periods, because this calendrical practice was not known before Eastern Han period. Qin- period scholars, e.g. Qian Daxin (1728–1804) and Wang Mingshen (1722–98), discredited the BA as a forgery as a whole. Zhu Youceng (promoted as jingshi in 1838) suggested that there was another genuine version of the BA and attempted to reconstruct it from quotations in pre-Song works. Wang Guowei (1877–1927) and Fang Xiangyong also contributed to this reconstruction, which received the name of Gu ben Zhushu jinian (Ancient BA), while the supposedly falsified version was re-defined as a Jin ben Zhushu jinian (Current BA) (cf. Zhu Youceng, comp., Wang Guowei, ed. Gu ben Zhushu jinian ji jiao. Taibei: Yiwen yinshuguan, year n/a). Due to the doubtful authenticity both versions were dis- qualified as sources for the early Chinese history. In the 1980ies, the BA again became a subject of scholarly discussion. David Keightley, not taking the “Current” version into consideration, discussed the Ancient BA as a possible Eastern Zhou creation. He stressed that it is not a reliable source for the historical period before Western Zhou period (cf. Keightley, David N.: “The Bamboo Annals and Shang- Chou Chronology”, in: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 38,2 (1978), pp. 423-38; pp. 429-34), while the account of Western Zhou history may be faithful, albeit reported in “Eastern Zhou terms” (Keightley 1978, pp. 436). David Nivison has reasonably noted that the quotations from the original BA could be transmitted to the secondary sources not directly, and thus there is no reason to credit them more than the Current BA. A part, or perhaps most of other textual information in the Current BA could be genuine, and this version is plausibly preferable to the Ancient BA (Cf. Zhang Peiyu: “Forum: Zhang Peiyu”, in: Early China 15 (1990), pp. 133-150, p. 134, Nivison 1993, p. 42). Some discrepancies with other early Chinese historical accounts, which caused Qin scholars to condemn the Current BA, might be even turned into advantages (cf. Zhang Peiyu 1990, p. 150), if its Eastern Zhou provenance could be proven. 12 Claude Lévi-Strauss noticed that “a history is a discontinued ensemble constituted by the domains, each defined by its own frequency. There are epochs, when numerous events offer to an historian’s eyes the features of differentiated events; in the others, contrarily, for him (but surely not for the people who lived then) very little or nothing had hap- pen” (cf. Lévi-Strauss, Claude: La Pensée sauvage. Paris: Plon, 1962, p. 340, transl. by the author of this paper). Unlike the Chunqiu annals, the BA is not a year-after-year continuing record of all more or less important events, but a dis- crete selection of events, which probably appeared especially significant to their authors. There are numerous lacunas of several years, when “nothing happened”, which reveals an approach of an historian, but not of an annalist.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 81 the first attempts of pre-imperial thinkers to systematize and evaluate the experience of historical development on a longue dureé scale.

II.1 Reality and Fiction in the Bamboo Annals Leaving aside the question of reliability of the BA chronology of pre-Eastern Zhou historical events,13 it is necessary to note a substantial heterogeneity within this text that is commonly en- countered in many pre-modern sources. It is a combination of documentary and imaginary ac-

13 David Nivison and Edward Shaughnessy demonstrated that few historical persons of the late Western Zhou period, mentioned in the BA, can be identified with persons whose names appeared in bronze inscriptions (Nivison, David S.: “The Dates of Western Zhou”, in: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies, 43,2 (1983), pp. 481-580, pp. 492-6, Shaughnessy, Ed- ward L.: “On the Authenticity of the Bamboo Annals”, in: Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies 46 (1986), pp. 149-80, pp. 151-5). As some details of the Western Zhou history were not known to Sima Qian and can be retraced only now by referring to the data given in epigraphic sources, the fact that these data were recorded in the BA becomes a strong argument in sup- port of its early composition. Therefore, it is very plausible that except for gan-zhi dates of the years and may be for some commentaries the Current BA core might be copied from the original bamboo document from the Wei tomb. David Pankenier has attempted at verification of astronomical data recorded in the Current BA and has found a consistent four-year discrepancy in the records of celestial events through the whole pre-Zhou period and eight-years backdat- ing of the Zhou Mandate year (Pankenier, David W.: “Astronomical Dates in Shang and Western Zhou”, in: Early China 7 (1981–2), pp. 2-37). Pankenier suggests that these errors resulted from the efforts of Eastern Zhou scholars to recalculate the dates of remote history. The inaccuracy plausibly occurred due to their preoccupation with abstract numerological schemes together with their inability to precisely identify the dates of astronomical events, and, in particular, their assump- tion that Jupiter’s sideral period that calculations were based on equals exactly twelve years, while the modern figure is 11,86 years (Pankenier 1981–2, p. 17). Pankenier has argued that these specific mistakes allow for identification of the BA compilation dates. Thus, the account of pre-conquest and Western Zhou history could be composed in early Eastern Zhou period, probably in the late eighth c. BC, while the last redaction dates to the late Eastern Zhou (Pankenier 1981–2, p. 22). David Nivison and Edward Shaughnessy have corroborated factual and chronological information of the Current BA from records in some inscriptions on ritual bronze vessels of Western Zhou period (Nivison 1983, pp. 492-6, Shaugh- nessy 1986, pp. 151-5). They suppose that chronological errors resulted from editorial efforts after the bamboo strips were found in the grave. Shaughnessy has proposed a hypothesis that a mistake in the year count of King Wu occurred when a strip was displaced from the account of King Cheng’s reign to that of King Wu, making his life time four years longer (Shaughnessy 1986, pp. 166-180). Shaughnessy defends the Current BA as a to a great extent reliable source at least for the history of the Zhou period, if taken critically and corroborated from other evidences (Shaughnessy, Edward L.: “The ‘Cur- rent’ Bamboo Annals and the Date of the Zhou Conquest of Shang”, in: Early China 11-12 (1985–7), pp. 33-60; Shaugh- nessy 1986). In 1990 Nivison in cooperation with Kevin Pang initiated a discussion about the authenticity of a solar eclipse record form the early Xia dynasty in the Current BA (Nivison, David S., Pang, Kevin: “Astronomical Evidence for the Bamboo Annals’ Chronicle of Early Xia”, in: Early China 15 (1990), pp. 87-95). They attempted at its corroboration from the data of the modern astronomy, and concluded that their results suggest that the Xia whose existence was questioned by many scholars of the 20th century because of the absence of any hard evidence, is not a myth, “but in fact belong to precisely datable history” (Nivison and Pang 1990, pp. 95). Huang Yilong critically reviewed their thesis together with Panke- nier’s work in Early China 7. He demonstrated on a number of examples that “because of astrological implications… the ancient often made note of exceptional astronomical phenomena without any observational basis” (Huang Yi-long: “Fo- rum: Huang Yi-long”, in Early China 15 (1990), pp. 97-112, p. 112). Therefore, astronomical records in ancient documents cannot be taken as a face value in order to reconstruct chronology, which is not supported by any other means. Therefore, I will regard the Current BA core in its complete form as an Eastern Zhou source, albeit it is possible that its compilers could have had some late Western Zhou documents at hand. However, the pre-Zhou accounts of the BA are the most likely fictional, although I admit that David Pankenier may be right suggesting that their dates of Shang and early Zhou periods might be results of reconstructions produced as early as in the Eastern Zhou period. But I also share Huang Yilong’s principal skepticism about portents records in any pre-modern sources, and doubt an absolute accuracy of the date records in Zhou documents, including epigraphy in particular (cf. Khayutina, Maria: The Puzzle of shanfu Ke: An Attempt of a Micro-Historical Study of Western Zhou Epigraphy. Dokumentation der Treffen der Arbeitgemeinschaft jünger Chi- nawissenschaftler und Chinawissenschaftlerinnen in Tübingen vom 15. bis 17. Februar 2002. Tübingen: Seminar für Sinologie und Ko- reanistik, 2002, pp. 55-62, p. 60-2).

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 82 Maria Khayutina counts, which are sometimes not easy to distinguish. Its reliability decreases with chronological remoteness from the time of its composition, and the history of earlier epochs portrayed in the BA may be better understood as a semi-fictional retrospective. Thus, this history is at least partly a mythological history, or historicized mythology.14 The writing down of a history contributes to the construction of a certain image of the world, which should be adequate to the representations and expectations in a certain socio-cultural contin- uum in a certain moment of time.15 “Witnesses” of supernatural participation serve to accept and valorize mundane reality,16 while references to some facts of the real life are essential to the viability of the myth. Therefore, the presence of mythological accounts does not discard the historicity of other data in the BA, if they may be corroborated from other sources. However, unlike many of the pre- Imperial “free” texts, the BA is a “systematizing” text, i.e. a “product of scholars who deliberately tried to lay down laws or make a consistent whole of ancient traditions and ritual ideas”.17 This deliberate managing of information of various origins and its systematization into a complete whole was a work of certain literati, who lived at a certain time, had a certain ideology and were designing their texts for a certain auditorium.18 Therefore, the BA may be approached not only as a random collection of historical records, which may be filtered from fiction and made useable for the reconstruction of the pre- imperial history of China in dates and facts. This text probably deserves even more attention due to its specific structure and content, valuable for investigating pre-imperial historical thinking and writing. As far as for the authors of this text, history apparently equated politics, it is also an important source for the study of political thinking of the middle Warring States period.

II.2 Structure of the Text The BA19 formally is subdivided on two parts (juan). The first juan covers the events from the dawn of history until the end of the Shang 商 dynasty (ca. 1570-1046 BC), while the second one covers the

14 A myth is always a “real history”, because it always refers to realities (cf. Eliade, Mircea. Aspects du mythe. Paris, Gallimard, coll. “Folio Essais”, n°100, 1963, p. 238). 15 Marcel Granet, while discussing the ancient Chinese historiographic tradition, put it as follows: “Every time the historical invention attempts to construct, it must obey to the governing principles of the thought. […] One idea dominates [the Chinese historians], since it dominates the whole Chinese thought. The Virtue affirms itself by the restora- tion of the Order” (cf. Granet, Marcel (1926): Danses et légendes de la Chine ancienne. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 3-e ed. 1994, p. 230). 16 Cf. Berger, Peter L.: The sacred canopy. Elements of a sociological theory of religion. New York: Anchor Books, 196, p. 25. 17 Karlgren, Bernard: “Legends and Cults in Ancient China”, in: Bulletin of the Museum of Far Eastern Antiquities, 18 (1946), pp. 199-366; p. 201. Karlgren rated to this category such texts, as Li ji, Yi li, and Zhou li (ibid). “Their scope is some- thing other than simply record ancient traditions or customs. They represent the endeavors of the Confucian school to determine what the beliefs and rites should properly be” (ibid). Karlgren noticed that Sima Qian’s chapters of the Shiji, “which treat of the pre-Han times are of the same systematizing character. He has based himself, as an historian, on various earlier documents and consciously tried to reconcile them”. Some of them “were already such systematizing texts, in particularly the chapter Di xi of the Da Dai li, which deliberately tries to reconstruct a consistent list of early sovereigns and to determine their family relationship” (Karlgren 1946, p. 202). The BA, to my opinion, also belongs to this genre of historical reconstruction. 18 “Historical circumstances create or revive mythological themes if the last ones respond to the needs of the former ones” (Mathieu, Rémi: Etude sur la mythologie et l’ethnographie de la Chine ancienne. Traduction annoteé du Shanhai jing. Paris: Collège de France, Institute des Hautes Etudes Chinoises, 1983, p. XVII. 19 Wang Guowei, Jinben Zhushu jinian shuzheng (Arrangement and Verification of “The Modern Text Bamboo Annals”), in: Li Min, Yang Zeling, Sun Shunlin, Shi Daoyang, Guben Zhushu jinian shizhu, Zhengzhou: Zhongzhou guji chubanshe, 1989. Hereinafter JBZSJN.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 83 whole Zhou 周 period (1045–221 BC) until 299 BC. However, for the purposes of this study, it is reasonable to propose another subdivision of the BA corpus. The events prior to Western Zhou are pre- sented in the BA as if they were recorded in the court chronicles of mythological “emperors” and the kings of Xia 夏 (trad. ca. XXII–XVII cc. BC), Shang and Western Zhou (1045–771 BC). However, any concepts, identifying the space and population under their rule, such as Tianxia 天下 (All-under- Heaven), Zhongguo 中國 (Middle Kingdom), or ethnonym Huaxia 華夏 are absent in the BA. Only the chronological count suggests that the BA image of the world centered in the figure of the legitimate sovereign of the All-under-Heaven – whether one of the mythological “emperors”, or Xia, Shang and Zhou kings. I will refer to them collectively as to Kings of the Middle.20 The Eastern Zhou part consists of a chronicle of Jin dukedom (from 770 until 404 BC), and after its division onto three parts, of one of its successors – Wei dukedom/kingdom21 (from 403 until 299 BC). It is noteworthy that the BA authors use the first person pronoun wo 我 (“we”) only referring to Wei and never to Jin.22 Jin chronology is given according to the reigns of Zhou kings. Thus, Jin is accessed from a lateral perspective in the BA, whether that of Wei, or that of Zhou center.23 However, despite the evident self- identification of the BA authors with the state of Wei, its chronology was still counted according to the Zhou calendar. It may suggest that despite Jin and Wei were de facto independent states, the BA authors might still perceive the Zhou court as the center, while their own state as only a part of the whole (Scheme VII).24 VII Emperors, Xia, Shang, W. Zhou E. Zhou

Jin/ Wei Center duke/king king Center king

20 I prefer to avoid the term “Chinese” and not to discuss, for instance, the possible degree of “Chineseness” of the legendary emperors, rulers of the mythological Xia dynasty, or of the historical tribes of the pre-dynastic period. 21 The rulers of Jin had a title hou (“Lord”), before Duke Wu of Jin took the title gong (“duke”) in 678 BC. After the partition of Jin in 404 BC the rulers of the new states Wei, Zhao and Han were raised to the rank of zhuhou. In 344 BC Lord Hui of Wei claimed the title wang (“king”). 22 In the Chunqiu annals the state of Lu, where the chronicle was recorded, is always referred to using the first person pronoun wo. It is unlikely that another state would be referred to as a third part, using its name, in its own annals. The usage of the wo pronoun in the Wei part of BA confirms this rule. This suggests that the chronicle of Jin is not genuine but edited by Wei authors of the BA. 23 Wei authors of the BA might consider more reasonable to bring the Jin chronology in convenience to the Zhou royal calendar, more widely known in their time. 24 The “Ancient” version presents the chronology according to the Jin and Wei royal calendar. Zhang Peiyu argues that this discrepancy together with some other calendrical inadequacy show that “the ‘Current’ text is definitely not a faithful rendition of the original tomb-text, and that its chronology is the result of willful manipulation on the part of its re- editors” (Zhang Peiyu 1990, p. 135). Although it is clear that the chronology of the original BA was re-edited, it seems to me not so evident that the “Ancient text” version is preferable. The authors of the BA could have reasons to continue using the Zhou calendar, while it might be initiative of its re-editor under the Jin dynasty (265–420) to re-date the chronicle according to the royal calendar of Jin, and subsequently Wei. As far as chronicles from other states did not survive, it is not possible to decide if there was a single standard of chronological count, or some states used both Zhou and local calendars. See, for example, Cook, Constance Anne: Auspicious Metals and Southern Spirits: an analysis of the Chu bronze inscriptions. Ph.D., University of California, 1990, pp. 72, 77-85. However, the discussion of this question goes beyond the limits of the present study.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 84 Maria Khayutina

This change of perspective from the central to a lateral one makes a logical demarcation, which suggests the possibility of dividing the BA differently from the way it is subdivided formally. Thus, the first, or “centrist” part will comprise the account starting from the epoch of the legendary emperor Huangdi until the end of the Western Zhou, while the chronicle of Jin and Wei will constitute its “collateral” part.

III Hospitality of the Great Legendary Rulers of the Past The word bin 賓25 in the BA was used as the verb “to guest”, usually occurring in the combination lai bin 來賓 “to come to guest”. With only a few exceptions, the counterparts of hospitality of the Middle Kingdom, as referred to in this source, were foreign political entities. One of the earliest events of political importance recorded in the BA was the “guesting” of the chiefs of the Guanxiong 貫胸 (“Pierced Chest” People, see Fig. I) and Changgu 長股 (“Long-Hackled” People, see Fig. II) 26 in the 59th year of Emperor Huangdi’s rule.27 This record is particularly interesting because it presents a unique claim in the pre-Qin sources about Huangdi establishing some kind of international relationship with foreign peoples. Other texts state that it was Shun who started to offer hospitality “at the four gates” while being in Emperor Yao’s service.28

25 Bin, Old Chinese piĕn (Ulving, Tor: Dictionary of Old and Middle Chinese. Bernhard Karlgren’s Grammata Serica Recensa Alphabetically Arranged. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis, 1997, p. 313, No. 5852). 26 These tribes evidently were not among the main political forces in ancient China. The Pierced Chest People is mentioned in the chapter “Classic [of lands] in the South beyond the Sea”, while the Long-Hackled People in the chapter “Classic [of lands] in the West beyond the Sea” of the Shanhaijing (“The Classic of Mountains and Seas”), in the list of other real and mythological peoples (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu. Shanghai: Guji chubanshe, 1980, pp. 194 and 227; Mathieu 1983, pp. 383, 385 and 412). They emerge once again in the Huainanzi, under the names of Qigu 奇股 (“Over[sized]- Hackled” People), one of the states located in the area from the North-West to the South-West), and the Chuanxiong 穿胸, “Pierced Chest”, one of the states located in the area reaching from the South-West to the South-East), together with “Tree-Bodied” and “Winged” peoples (cf. Huainanzi: Huainan hong lie ji jie. Liu Wendian (ed). Beijing: Jin- hua shujiu, 1997. Vol. I, p. 114). 27 An AD III – V c. text Bo wu zhi 博物志 presents a story about the origin of the Pierced Chest People: Da Yu 大禹 (“Yu the Great”) summoned all the gods at Guiji 會稽 Champ (gui is one of the readings of the character 會, usually pronounced hui and meaning “assembly”; thus the name of the locality may be translated as “The Camp of Assem- blies and Inspections” – M. Kh., cf. also Granet 1926, p. 342). One of them, Fang-feng 防風, arrived too late, so Yu killed him. Later, when Yu traveled in a dragon carriage, he passed by Fang-feng’s territory. Two of Fang-feng’s officers wanted to revenge for their lord (in other versions it is Fang-feng’s spirit himself), so they pierced Yu. Then the storm blew up and the dragons rose up and left. The two officers, terrified, stabbed themselves with daggers in the heart and died. Yu grieved over them, so he revived them, and they became the Pierced Chest People (cf. Birrell, Anne: Chinese Mythology. An Introduction. Baltimore & London: The John Hopkins University Press, (1993) 1999, p. 246.) The BA records the execution of Fang-feng, but does not explain its reasons. Fang-feng’s figure in the BA does not seem to be related to the Pierced Chest People. Similarly, the “Speeches of Lu” chapter of the Guo yu 國語 refers to Fang-feng’s execution without mentioning the Pierced Chest People, but also claiming that he was a lord of the Wangmang 汪芒 people. However, according to the Guo yu, Fang-feng was a giant. After killing him, Yu displayed his body to the public, and his bone-joints occupied a whole carriage. In Wangman-people’s territory during the Zhou dynasty lived the Changdi 長狄 (“Tall Di”), and still now tall people (da ren 大人) live there (cf. Guo yu. Shanghai: Shanghai guji chubanshe. Vol. I, p. 213 ). This story plausibly provides a link the Long-Hackled People who were mentioned in the BA together with the Pierced Chest People as the first guests of Huangdi. However, it is noteworthy that both in the BA and in the Bo wu zhi Fang-feng and the Pierced Chest People are related to the mythology of hospitality. The BA probably refers to one unknown version of this myth. 28 Cf. Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu: Yang Bojun (ed.). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981, Vol. 2, p. 642; Shang shu zhengdu: Zeng Yunqian (ed.). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1964, p. 16; Shi ji: Sima Qian, Shi ji. Beijing: Zhonghua shuju chubanshe

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 85

Fig. I “Pierced Chest” People Fig. II “Long-Hackled” People

According to the BA in the 16th year of Yao, the ruler of the Qusou 渠搜 People29 came to guest. In Yao’s 29th year, a ruler of the Jiaoyao 僬僥 People attended an audience chao 朝 and offered meiyu 沒羽 (“water-drowning feathers”). Unlike the Long-Hackled People, they were famous for their extremely small height.30 In 9th year of Shun, Xiwangmu 西王母 (Queen-Mother of the West)31 attended at an audience chao and offered white pendant baihuan 白環 and jade pendant yujue 玉玦 to the Emperor Shun.

(1959) 1973, pp. 21 and 36. While the Zuo zhuan refers to the Shun dian chapter of the Shang shu, the BA evidently represent another version of the development of the Chinese diplomacy. The Shang shu vision is obviously metaphoric, while the BA proposes a quasi-documentary evolutionist report of a step-by-step construction of the center-periphery relations in ancient China. 29 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 194. This tribe is also mentioned in the “Tributes of Yu” chapter of the “Book of History“, together with the Kunlun people as one of the Western Rong tribes (cf. Shang shu zhengdu, p. 71). 30 In the same passage of the “Speeches of Lu”, Confucius refers to Jiaoyao as a counterexample to extremely tall descendants of Fang-feng (cf. Guoyu, Vol. I, p. 213). Huainanzi mentions Jiaoyao as a representative of the South-West (Huainanzi, Vol. I, p. 138). 31 Chen Mengjia suggested a relationship between Xiwangmu and Ximu 西母 (“Mother of the West”) deity, to whom sacrifices were offered during the Shang dynasty (cf. Chen Mengjia, “Guwen zi zhong zhi Shang Zhou jisi”. In: Yanjing xuebao 19 (1936), p. 131). However, this connection is not evident, given that the name Ximu appears only once in the oracle bone inscriptions, while it is completely absent in Western Zhou epigraphy and literary sources (cf. Fracasso, Ric- cardo: “Holy Mothers of Ancient China. A New Approach to the Hsi-wang-mu Problem”, in: T’oung Pao 74 (1988), pp. 1- 46; p. 31). One of the earliest mentions of Xiwangmu is in the “Da zongshi” 大宗師 chapter of the Zhuangzi, where she is represented as a timeless being that penetrated the Dao (cf. Zhuangzi jishi: Guo Qingfan (ed.). Beijing: Zhonghua shuju, 1981, Vol. 1, p. 247). “The timelessness attributed to the Queen Mother is intimately related to the theme of immortality – more and more elaborated in later Taoist literature” (Fracasso, p. 7). Xiwangmu also appears several times in the Shanhai- jing. In Book II, the “Classic of Mountains in the West”, she is described as a human-like being with leopard tail, tiger fangs and straggly hair, who is perfect at whistling, has a head garment and lives at the Jade Mountain which is situated 350 li westwards of Kunlun mountains (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu, p. 50, Mathieu 1983, p. 100). Xiwangmu is mentioned without such terrifying features in Book XII, the “Classic of [Lands] within the Northern Sea”, where her residence is moved further to the northwest. In Book XVI, the “Classic of Great Wilderness of the West”, her habitation is also said to be in the Kunlun Mountains, but this location itself is placed much further to the west (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu, p. 407, Mathieu 1983, p. 588). The location of Xiwangmu is drifting further westwards, “moving through the textual layers of the Shanhaijing from the central mountains to the lands within, and then onwards to those without, the Western Sea” (Fracasso 1988, p. 12). However, the composition of Book XVI which places Xiwangmu further westwards, is plausibly anterior to book II (cf. Yuan Ke, “Shanhaijing xiezuode shidi ji bienmu kao”, in: Shenhua lunwen ji, Shanghai, 1982, pp. 10-20; Mathieu 1983, p. 482; Fracasso 1988, p. 12). Yan Ke suggests that the books XIV-XVIII of the Shanhaijing could have been composed as early as in the first half of the Warring States period, i.e. in V-IV cc. BC, so that Book XVI’s image of Xiwangmu may

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 86 Maria Khayutina

Xiwangmu was mentioned once more in the BA: in the 17th year of his reign, King Mu of Zhou went on his Western campaign and visited (jian 見) Xiwangmu32 in the Kunlun mountains.33 In the next year the Queen-Mother of the West came to an audience chao. In Shun’s 25th year, the ruler of the Xishen 息慎 People attended the audience and offered bows and arrows as tribute. This was evidently the same tribe as the Sushen 肅慎,34 the producers of marvelous arrows who came to the court again in the initial decades of Zhou rule.35

have existed even before or simultaneously with that of Zhuangzi. Riccardo Fracasso suggests that Xiwangmu’s Taoist image in Zhuangzi represents a southern tradition, while her demonic image in the two books of the Shanhaijing probably has a south-western, probably Tibetan origin (cf. Fracasso 1988, p. 32). The northern tradition unlike these two regards Xi- wangmu as “a sovereign of a western clan/territory centered around the Mt. Kun-lun” (Fracasso 1988, p. 32). The most representative example of this tradition is found in the Mu tianzi zhuan (“King Mu’s biography), which was discovered together with the BA in the tomb of King Xiang of Wei. The authors of the BA also placed Xiwangmu in the Mount Kunlun, and thus apparently shared the northern tradition. The localization of the Mt. Kunlun since long ago was a subject of ongoing discussion (cf. Fruehauf, Manfred: “Der Kunlun im Alten China. Versuch einer Positionsbestimmung zwischen Geographie und Mythologie”, in: Minima Sinica, 2000, No. 1, pp. 41-67, No. 2, pp. 55-94). The imprecise and versatile localization of Kunlun implies that it is meant as a symbolic, but not real physical-geographical object. It func- tioned as a marker of the western border of the Chinese cultural space (cf. Fruehauf 2000, No. 1, p. 47), and was regarded as the sacred mountain of immortality and axis mundi of the Chinese mythology (cf. Birrell 1999, p. 183-185). 32 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 280. King Mu of Zhou’s being guested (bin) by Xiwangmu is a culmination of the story about his western campaign in the Mu tianzi zhuan, “an historical romance”, which may be regarded “as one of the few successful attempts to produce an epic in ancient Chinese literature” (Mathieu, Rémi: “Mu t’ien tzu chuan” in Loewe 1993, pp. 342-346; p. 342). This text has much in common with the BA (cf. Mathieu, Rémi: Le Mu Tianzi zhuan. Traduction annoteé. Etude critique. Paris: Collège de France, Mémoires de l’Institut des Hautes Etudes Chinoises IX (1978), p. 145). This text certainly dates from the late IVth c. BC but not from the Western Zhou time (cf. Mathieu 1993, p. 342; Behr, Wolfgang: “Rhyming in the Mu tianzi zhuan”. Treizièmes journées de Linguistique de l’Asie Orientale / Premières Rencontres de l’AELC, 10–11 jiun 1999, Paris, EHESS-CRLAO), thus this legend probably originated during the Warring States period. 33 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 227. He came holding a white jade scepter baigui 白圭 and a dark jade pendant xuanbi 玄璧 (cf. Mu tianzi zhuan in Si bu bei yao, as reprinted in Mathieu 1978). This mention of jade ritual objects makes a parallel to Xi- wangmu’s offering of jade pendants to the Emperor Shun. It is noteworthy that jade scepter and pendants were used both as power regalia and as sacrificial objects, and were part of the ritual ammunition of the Zhou nobility. 34 In the Zuo zhuan we find a reference to the state of Xi 息 as possessor of marvellous arrows. Xi was an independent state in Shandong during the Springs and Autumns period. In the 14th year of Lu duke Zhuang, Xi asked Chu for help against the earl of Cai 蔡, who forcedly retained Xi bride at his court, acting thus “inhospitably” to her (cf. Zuo zhuan, Vol. I, p. 184-199). Chu king Wen used this pretext to conquer both Cai and Xi. In the 4th year of Lu duke Xuan, viscount Fen 棼, a leader of the Ruoao 若敖 clan, revolted against the Chu king Zhuang. In a battle he twice shot arrows at the Chu king, and both arrows reached his chariot. The Chu army got threatened and run away. Then King Zhuang invented a means to cheer up his soldiers: he told them that formerly, after conquering Xi, King Wen received there “three arrows”. Viscount Fen recently stole two of them, but now both of them are discharged (Chunqiu Zuo zhuan, Vol. II, p. 682). If Fen’s success could be so easily explained through the magical force of the arrows, one may suppose that this legend circulated quite widely in Springs and Autumns time, or at least during the Warring States period, when the Zuo zhuan was written down. One of the earliest references to the Sushen as producers of arrows may be found in the “Speeches of Lu” of the Guo yu. At the Chen 陳 court Confucius was asked to judge upon the arrow made of the hu 楛 plant, with a head made of stone, one chi and one ji long. He identified it as one of the Sushen arrows. He said that after the conquest of Shang, Zhou king Wu ordered “nine tribes of Yi and hundred tribes of Man to come and bring their country goods (hui 賄) as a tribute (gong 貢)”. The Sushen then brought stone-head arrows made of the hu plant, having exactly the same length (cf. Guo yu, Vol. I, p. 215). This ethnonym also appears in the same list together with the Pierced Chest People and the Long-Hackled People in the Huainanzi (cf. Huainanzi, Vol. I, p. 114). As I demonstrated above, both are related to the stories in the “Speeches of Lu”, namely about Confucius’ abilities to judge upon strange objects. Sima Qian quoted the whole story from the Guo yu in the biography of Confucius (cf. Shi ji, Vol. VI, p. 1922). ). In Sima Xiangru’s biography he said that the Sushen lived close to Lanya 琅邪, a place south of Qi 齊 in Shandong pen-

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 87

In Shun’s 35th year, he ordered the Xiahou 夏后36 to wage a “corrective” campaign against the ruler of the Youmiao 有苗 tribe.37 As a result, the Youmiao came to an audience.38 In Shun’s 42nd year, the ruler of the Dark Capital (Xuandu 玄都)39 came to an audience and offered the treasured jade (bao yu 寶玉).40

insula (cf. Shi ji, Vol. VI, p. 1922). This location corresponds to whereabouts of the Su 肅 state of the Springs and Au- tumns period between the states Song 宋, Lu 魯 and Chu 楚, close to the state of Xi. Sima Qian probably distinguished the Sushen from the Xishen 息慎, whose visit to the emperor Yao he recorded in the Wu di ben ji chapter of the Shi ji but said nothing about arrows (cf. Shi ji, Vol. I, p. 43). Once again he mentioned Xishen in the Zhou ben ji chapter (cf. Shi ji, Vol. I, p. 133): “when King Cheng conquered the Eastern Yi, the Xishen came to congratulate him (lai he 來賀). The king ordered (bi 俾) Earl Rong to issue an order as a bounty (hui 賄) to the Xishen” (cf. Shi ji, Vol. I, p. 133). “Officers of Zhou”, one of the lately forged chapters of the Old Text Book of History (cf. Shaughnessy, 1993, pp. 378-9), apparently word for word quotes from the Zhou ben ji, but changes the name of Xishen to Sushen ([Old text] Shang shu, p. 67). Obviously, the interchange of Su and Xi in different sources was not only due to the geographical proximity, but also to the legend about the arrows. However, the location of these producers of arrows appears to be even more problematic. In the Zuo zhuan, related to the 9th year of Duke Zhao of Lu, the Sushen are mentioned together with Yan 燕 and Hao 亳 in the list of northern lands which were under the control of the since the conquest of the Shang (cf. Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu, Vol. IV, p. 1307). Hao was a name of the ancient capital of Shang king Cheng-Tang. In the Zuo zhuan, Hao was referred to as related to the Song state, ruled by descendants of the Shang, and often mentioned in the same context as the Su. One might wonder why a Zhou king residing in Chengzhou would denote Hao and Su as “northern” lands, but not as “eastern” ones. Northern location of the Sushen conforms to its northern or north-western location, given in the Shanhaijing, where they are listed in the “Classic [of lands] in the West beyond the Sea” and the “Classic of the Great Wilderness in the North” (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu, p. 226, p. 421). This geographical “mishmash” may have different explanations. It is possible that the historical Sushen used to live somewhere in the north among archery-proficient nomad tribes, but then migrated and settled in Shandong. Or it might be that legendary Sushen mixed up with historically documented states of Su and Xi in the popular tradition of the eastern (Lu) and southern (Chu) regions. These peculiarities allow one to suggest that the record of the Sushen’s visit in the BA was not a mere fixation of an historical fact, but rather another appellation to a legendary tradition. 35 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 227. 36 Xia-hou, the Lord of Xia, is Yu the Great, the founder of the Xia dynasty. 37 Warring States authors referred to the victory over You Miao (also known as Three Miao (San Miao 三苗) as to one of the greatest achievements of the emperors, which provided the basis for the establishment of order in the All- under-Heaven. Usually this success is associated with the name of Yu the Great, albeit Xunzi represented it as Shun’s own gain (cf. Xunzi jijie: Wang Xianqian (ed.), Yiwen yinshuguan, year n/a, Vol. I, p. 393). Mozi and Xunzi compared it with other decisive victories of later dynasty founders over notorious malefactors, such as Cheng Tang’s victory over Xia King Jie, or King Wu’s victory over Shang king Zhou (cf. Mozi in: Bai zi quan shu, repr. of Guanxu edition of 1875, Taibei: Gujin wenhua chubanshe, 1963.Vol. IX, p. 5434, Xunzi, ibid). The Three Miao Peoples are listed in Book VI, the “Classic [of lands] in the South beyond the Sea”, of the Shanhaijing, where it is neighboring with the Pierced Chest People (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu, p. 193, Mathieu 1983, p. 381). This source provides also an alternative name Three Mao (San Mao 三毛). Under this second name this people is also registered in Book XVII, the “Classic of the Great Wilderness of the North”, where Yu the Great is called a progenitor of the Mao People (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu, p. 424, Mathieu 1983, p. 605). Again, further in the same partition of the Shanhaijing, a Miao People is said to reside beyond the Northeastern Sea northwards of the Black (Hei shui 黑水) river. The Miao have wings and trace their ancestry to the Emperor Zhuanxu (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu, p. 436, Mathieu 1983, p. 618-619). 38 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 227. 39 The toponym Xuandu does not occur in any other pre-Imperial source. However, some sources refer to the Dark capital under the name of Youdu 幽都. According to the “Yao dian” chapter of the “Book of History”, Emperor Yao ordered to the brothers Xi and He to dwell in the lands in the four cardinal directions in order to calculate the seasons of the year. The younger He brother was sent to the north, and his residence received the name of Youdu (cf. Shang shu zhengdu, p. 12). There he should “adjust and examine the changes of the winter” (Legge, James, The Shoo King, in: The Chinese Classics, 1872, repr. Hong Kong University Press, 1960, Vol. III, p. 21). Youdu is also associated with Youzhou, the place of exile

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 88 Maria Khayutina

Although the historicity of this account is improbable, it makes one wonder about the reasons of choosing these tribes as counterparts of Emperors’ hospitality. It is noteworthy that some of them occur in the Shanhaijing 山海經 and the Huainanzi 淮南子 in a clearly mythological context. It is possible that some of these peoples had real prototypes, but the fact that they are not mentioned in pre-Warring States’ authentic epigraphic and edited texts, plausibly suggests that these peoples were not in contact with the inhabitants of the Middle Kingdom before that time. The legendary and mythological contexts, in which they are mentioned in other sources allows one to suppose that they were listed among the visitors of the first emperors due to their extraordinary qualities and abilities. The marvelous gifts they offered probably signified transfer of their magical powers to the emperors. If the geography of the Shanhaijing41 may be taken into account, another common feature of some of them are the extremely remote places of their habitations, which might symbolize the great extent of the Emperors’ power in the geographical space (Scheme VIII). The visit of Kunlun summit- dweller Xiwangmu and of the subterranean Youdu ruler might signify the recognition of the Emperors’ sovereignty by the powerful spirits of the “above and below”. Thus, the records about the guests and visitors of the legendary emperors implicitly convey an idea that these great sovereigns extended their power over the most powerful and marvelous peoples and found acknowledgment in the whole oecumene. No wonder that visitors and guests, who attended the court after their time were “normal” foreigners without special supernatural characteristics, most of whom could be identified with peoples of Shang and Zhou periods.

of Gong Gong, another malefactor conquered by Yu the Great (cf. Zeng Yunqian, in: Shang shu zhengdu, p. 12). In Book XVIII, the “Classic of [Lands] within the Sea”, of the Shanhaijing, Youdu is said to be a name of a mountain in the fur- thermost north beyond the Northern Sea: “The Black River (Hei shui 黑水) takes its source there. On its top there are dark (xuan 玄) birds, dark snakes, dark leopards, dark tigers and dark foxes with straggly tails” (cf. Shanhaijing jiao zhu, p. 462, Mathieu 1983, p. 641). According to Huainanzi, Youdu marked the northern limit of the Emperor Shennong’s realm (Huainanzi, Vol. I, p. 271). Emperor Yao’s moral teaching reached as far as Youdu in the north (Huainanzi, Vol. II, p. 630). The names Youdu and Xuandu are apparently interchangeable, since they both refer to the blackness and darkness as symbols of the North, where it is “dark and black and there is no light, where the sky closes, […] and the black color pre- vails” (Huainanzi, Vol. I, p. 145-6). Youdu, the Dark Capital, also appears in the Zhao hun 招魂 song of the Chu ci, where it is represented as a subterranean place, the Hell governed by the Earth Lord (Tubo 土伯 or Houtu 后土; cf. Chuci, in: Fu- jino Iwatomo (ed.), Soji [Chuci]. Tôkyô: Shûeisha, 1967, p. 143). Tubo is said to be “nine-coiled, with dreadful horns on his forehead, […] great humped back and bloody thumbs, pursuing men, swift-footed”, with “three eyes in his tiger’s head” and with a bull’s body (transl. in: Hawkes, David: Ch’u Tz’u. The Songs of the South. An Ancient Chinese Anthology. Oxford: At the Clarendon Press, 1959, p. 105). 40 The offer of treasured jade by Xuandu People makes a parallel to the offer of jade objects by Xiwangmu (there were no other donors of jade among the Emperors’ guests and visitors). Since the jade had a sacred value in ancient China, these records of gifts may point to the interrelation between Xiwangmu and Xuandu in the BA. The locations of Xi- wangmu and Xuandu People may not only mark the western and northern extremities of the oecumene, but to be juxtaposed also in the “vertical” dimension: the highest peak Kunlun vs. subterranean Dark Capital. While Xiwangmu in the Taoist tradition is a donator of immortality, Houtu, ruler of the Dark Capital, is a ruler of the underworld. 41 The Shanhaijing represents a systematical description of the Earth. However, it deals not so much with the real geographical space, but rather with sacred one, which is qualitatively different from the profane space, and is inhabited by myriads of supernatural beings. Thus, its geographical knowledge is markedly different from modern geography in its content, form and functions (cf. Dorofeeva-Lichtmann, Vera: “Text as a Device for Mapping of Sacred Space: A Case of the Wu zang shan jing (“Five Treasures: The Itineraries of Mountains”)”, in: Dorofeeva-Lichtmann, Vera, Dickhardt, Michael (eds.): Creating and Representing Sacred Spaces, Göttingen (Göttinger Beitrage zur Asienforschung Vol. 2): Pest&Gut- schmidt Verlag, forthcoming).

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 89

VIII Youmiao N Xuandu

Xiwangmu Center Sushen Changgu

Mt. Kunlun Guanxiong, Jiaoyao

IV Hospitality under the Shang and Zhou Dynasties IV.1 The Guests: Foreigners from the Four Quarters of the World. It appears that folks, farther referred to as “guests” in the BA, belonged either to the Eastern group of peoples, the Yi 夷, or to the Western group of peoples, the Rong 戎.42 Few visits of representatives of the Southern group of peoples, the Man 蠻, were mentioned, but they were referred to as “coming [to offer] tribute” (lai gong 來貢, lai xian 來獻).43 No individual visits of the Northern foreigners Di 狄, were recorded. This might probably demonstrate cultural or political proximity and power balance with Eastern and Western peoples. On the other hand, it could display a higher degree of alienation from the Northern Neighbors, and a higher degree of subordination or depre- ciation of Southern Peoples (cf. Scheme IX).44

IX N coming to guest Center coming to guest W E

coming to offer tribute

42 Ethnical affiliation of many of them may be retraced only by the help of later sources which provide more explicit ethnographical information, e.g., Han shu, Hou Han shu etc. In other Eastern Zhou sources, such as Mozi, Zhuangzi, Guanzi, Liushi chunqiu, foreign folks were referred collectively as si yi 四夷, “the foreigners [from the] four [parts of the world]”. According to this abstract quadripartite scheme they were classified as Western Rong, Northern Di, Southern Man and Eastern Yi. The same scheme dominated the foreigners-related discourse of the imperial period, in particular, in the Shi ji, Han shu, Hou Han shu, Jin shu, etc. However, these later sources demonstrate the efforts of their authors to present a more precise attribution of particular tribes to each of these groups. 43 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 247, 250-251. 44 This is probably analogical to the ancient Greek example, where “xenos-foreigner is not every foreigner, but foreigner with whom the xenia is possible, he is a Greek or at least Ellinized foreigner. […] In the mythical world the xenia is practiced among all “civilized” peoples, while it is absent among the others, […] such as Cyclopes and Lestrygons” (Gauthier, 1973, p. 6). In the BA, however, there is no any articulated contraposition of the Chinese and foreigners in the cultural or civilizationist sense. Thus, it is more likely that political relations with foreign peoples defined who of them could be accepted as a guest, a visitor, or be kept aside.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 90 Maria Khayutina

In the 25th year of King Cheng of Zhou, a “great hui meeting” of zhuhou 諸侯 (“all the lords”) in the Eastern capital was recorded, where all the “foreigners from the four parts of the world” came to guest.45 This probably symbolized the great achievements of King Cheng in pacifying the All- under-Heaven, as well as his lack of bias against any ethnic group.

VI.2 “Hospitality” of the Shang If mythological and legendary characteristics of foreign counterparts of the Emperors’ external politics unambiguously reveal fictionality of this part of the chronicle, introduction of real ethnonyms in the annals of Xia, Shang and Zhou convey an impression of historical likelihood, which may convince not only an ancient reader, but also a modern scholar in the documentarity of these parts of the BA. However, these records of the BA also show a number of inconsistencies. One might only wonder about the character of Xia documentation, if it ever existed at all, but for the Shang “annals” one would expect corroboration from the abundant data of the Shang epigraphy. Even though tribes such as Guifang and Qiang were mentioned in the oracle bone inscriptions as counterparts of Shang political and military activities,46 no foreign tribe was ever referred to in terms of hospitality.47 Foreign tribes were said to lai 來 (“come”) to the Shang.48 However, in some cases foreigners really took part in rituals of the Shang hospitality. Ironically, they were not its subjects, but objects: they were used as victims in sacrificial rituals of hosting royal ancestral spirits (bin 賓).49

VI.3 Hospitality of the Western Zhou In Western Zhou sources the terminology of hospitality was used extremely scarcely,50 especially in a geo-political context.51 Only a few unique documents from this period witness that foreigners might

45 JBZSJN, p. 274. The term si yi could mean not only “foreigners of the four parts of the world”, but also “four tribes of Yi”, i.e. Eastern foreigners. However, it is probably more likely that here this term is used in the first meaning. 46 The BA holds Di Qiang 氐羌 as a name of a tribe. However, in oracle bone inscriptions di 氐 apparently was used as a verb “to bring”: di qiang, “to bring the Qiang [to the Shang court]” (cf. Chen Mengjia 1956, p. 277). On the other hand, the major counterparts of the Shang, such as the Tufang, Gongfang, Renfang and others, were never mentioned in the BA (cf. Chang, Kwang-chih: Shang Civilization. Nev Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980, pp. 249-253). However, the discussion of this problem goes beyond the present study. For the critique of authenticity of the Shang BA annals see Keightley 1978, pp. 429-34. 47 The word bin (“to guest”, or “to host”) was reserved for ancestral spirits or deities of natural forces, who “visited” Shang kings or one another (cf. Chen Mengjia: Yinxu buci zongshu [General exposition of the oracle bone inscriptions from the ru- ins of Yin capital]. Beijing, 1956, p. 573; Chang Tsung-t’ung: Der Kult der Shang-Dynastie im Spiegel der Orakelinschriften – Eine palaographische Studie zur Religion im archaischen China. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, l970, p. 138). Therefore it is quite evident that the Shang Annals of the BA is not an authentic chronicle of the Shang epoch. 48 There are some examples as to when a tribe was said to lai jian (“come to show [themselves]”), or lai wang (“come [to visit] the king”), cf. Chen Mengjia 1956, p. 294. 49 Cf. Chen Mengjia 1956, p. 280-1. The Qiang were traditionally used as victims in ancestral sacrifices until the reign of King Yi-xin: “[inquiry: shall we] sacrifice nine Qiang to [ancestor] Shang Jia?” (Ibid., p. 280.) After his reign ethnic affiliation of human victims was not concretized: “The King will offer a bin [hosting] ceremony to [ancestor] Wu Ding. Ten men will be executed.” (Ibid., p. 281.) 50 The word bin was still used in ritual contexts referring to ancestral spirits. It was also used as one of the terms used for donations, designating a “horizontal” type of exchange between the counterparts of equal social status (cf. Kryukov Vasily (Vassili) M.: Ritual’naya kommunikatsiya v drevnem Kitae (Ritual communication in ancient China). Moscow-Taibei: Institut Vostokovedeniya RAN, 1997, p. 87). About the Middle Western Zhou it started to be used for guests – non- members of clans, who attained at clan festivities (cf. Khayutina, Maria: “Instituty “druzei” I “gostei” v drevnem Kitae. Evolyuciya social’nyh I politicheskih yavlenii I sootvetstvuyushei terminologii v periody Zapadnogo Zhou, Chunqiu i Zhanguo. (Institu-

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 91 be referred to as guests,52 so that it is plausible that the idea about the possibility of hospitality towards foreign peoples was born not earlier than in Zhou times. As we shall see below, the authors of the BA might have had rather plausible representations of the Western Zhou pattern of hospitality.53 Let us look closer at the details of Western Zhou model of hospitality, such as it may be retraced upon the BA and some available epigraphic materials. Historical events recorded in the BA may be subdivided into four main categories: the succes- sion of rulers, military campaigns, the inter- and intrastate meetings, and unusual natural phenomena. Military campaigns and meetings constitute the main content of political life. The total number of military campaigns, defined as zheng 征 (“corrective”) or fa 伐 (“punitive”) mentioned in this text is 132, while the total number of meetings, defined as chao 朝 (“audiences”), hui 會 (“assemblies”), bin 賓 (“guestings”)54 and meng 盟 (“covenants”) is 99. Diagram I represents the correlation between various types of meetings mentioned in the pre- Eastern Zhou part of the “Bamboo Annals”. It follows that the entertainment of guests constituted about one third of the diplomatic activities by the state.

Diagram I

covenant s assemblies 1% 20% guesting 34%

aud iences 45%

For the meetings of the hui type the kings usually summoned the members of their political coalition, the zhuhou, collectively. Individual representatives of political or ethno-political entities arrived at the meetings of the bin and chao type. None of these kinds of meetings took place on a regular basis.55

tions of “friends” and “guests” in Ancient China. Evolution of the social and politic phenomena and of the appropriate terminology during the Western Zhou, Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods). Moscow, 1999; Kha- yutina, Maria: “The semantic of jia and the ‘lucky guests’ in ancient Chinese ritualism”. Paper read in absentia at the 14th Conference of the Warring States Working Group at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, 5-7 May 2000). 51 Shang divination records concerned almost all possible aspects of the Shang state activities, so that if any actions of hospitality to the foreigners had taken place, they would be certainly reflected in the sources. The evidences from the Zhou period are much more random, and nothing comparable to the Shang royal divination archive was found as yet. 52 See below. 53 This does not necessarily mean that they are based on hard evidence. 54 I propose the technical term “guesting” as an adverbial noun of the verb “to guest” in order to designate someone’s “state of being a guest”. 55 Seasons when the meetings took place are seldom indicated. It appears that the springtime was perceived as the most appropriate time for meetings. Eight chao meetings, two hui and one bin meeting are recorded to have taken place in the spring. In the other cases, the time is not indicated.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 92 Maria Khayutina

According to the BA, the hui assemblies usually took place upon the order of the reigning king, who acted as their personal host. This situation changed during the Eastern Zhou period, when sometimes one of the zhuhou could summon the others to an assembly. In particular, the record of the initial year of the first Eastern Zhou king Ping states that the ruler of Jin gathered the rulers of Wei, Chen and Qin at a hui meeting in order to provide a military convoy to the king and to bring him to the eastern capital Chengzhou.56 As to the chao audiences, it appears that visitors appeared at the court sometimes voluntarily, sometimes upon the royal order, as in the 4th year of King Xuan, when the king first ordered Juefu to travel to Wei, and as a result Wei-hou came to an audience.

VI.4 Hierarchy of Hospitality It was never explicitly defined in the BA who was conceptualized as the “host” for the foreign guests. It hardly could have been the ruler of the Middle Kingdom individually, since the guests also came as anonymous representatives of their tribes. Similarly, Yin chieftain Zi Hai 殷侯子亥 was also said to have guested at the Youyi 有易 tribe but not with its chief Mianchen 綿臣 personally. The “host” was probably, at the beginning, the royal clan as a representative of the whole consociation of zhuhou, and in later times, the state as the suprapersonal and supraethnical institution.57 The foreign counterparts of the bin type relations were usually called by their ethnonym only referring to such large and mighty ethno-political entities as the Western Rong, the Eastern Nine Yi, the Di Qiang, the Northern Tang etc. Smaller individual tribes were called by their ethnonyms and defined as shi 氏 (literally “clan”, but here this may be translated as “tribe”).58 The pre-dynastic rulers in the BA were also defined as representatives of their shi (clans), and therefore one may suggest that their communication with other shi visually proceeded on the same level as that between two individual kin groups.59 The BA gives an example of hospitality relations between two independent tribes on equal footing.60 This suggests that hospitality basically presupposed a “horizontal” type of communication (Scheme X).

X Chieftain A shi B shi Foreign chieftain Tribe A shi B shi Tribe

56 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 296. 57 Warring States period accounts about Emperor Yao entrusting Shun to receive guests suggest that the king could delegate his power to host the guests to the appointed officials. The Zhou li 周禮 (“Rituals of the Zhou”) represents hospitality as a routine procedure entrusted to bureaucrats at various levels (cf. Zhou li in: Gu ji shisan jing. Beijing: Xinyu shujiu, year n/a. Vol. II p. 20, 99). In practice, all domains being part of the Chinese state and represented by their heads must have acted as “hosts” towards non-Chinese visitors when they passed through their possessions. The Zuozhuan comments upon the Chunqiu record of the Rong’s 戎 arrival at the chao audience at the Zhou court, when Fan-bo 凡伯, one of the local lords, refused to offer them hospitality. Few months later the Rong attacked him in revenge (cf. Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu, Vol. I, p. 54). 58 Until the historically acknowledged Shang-Yin state, it is a matter of pure speculation to discuss the level of statehood of Xia and its neighbors, not to say about the legendary “emperors” and their counterparts. The source does not consider any organizational differences between the Chinese “state” and non-Chinese “tribes”. 59 The extraordinary qualities of the “guests”, which were discussed above, also allow to suggest that they were if not of equal but at least of comparable status with the emperors. 60 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 208.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 93

As can be concluded from the accounts given in the BA, a guest possessed immunity and should not be harmed by the host, even if he behaved inappropriately. While guesting at Youyi, Yin-hou Zi Hai committed adultery and the Youyi chief Mianchen killed him. This action of breaking hospitality was evidently perceived as an exceptional violation of the rules. In response, Hai’s son Shang Jia sent troops against Youyi, eliminated its forces and killed Mianchen.61 After the establishment of dynasties and their consolidation between various kin groups and some groups of different ethnic origin around the political center, the ruler, defined as 帝, di (“emperor”), or 王, wang (“king”), represented his heterogeneous political entity before monoethnic or mutually connected tribes. This new line-up should have amended the communicational pattern of hospitality, making the position of a “guest” visiting the Chinese king lower than that of the “host” (Scheme XI).

XI King of the Middle A di/wang

B shi [Head] of a foreign tribe

This hierarchical pattern of hospitality was manifested more dramatically when the coming of foreigners “to guest” at the royal court followed a preceding military campaign, like, for instance, the campaign against the Western Rong in the 12th year of the Shang-Yin king Zu Jia 祖甲. In winter of this year “the King came back from the Western Rong”, and in the 13th year “the Western Rong came to guest”.62 It is possible that the “guesting” in the BA was perceived not as a momentary action, during which the roles of “host” and “guest” were temporarily valid, but as the establishment of a long- term relationship that fastened these roles to the counterparts from that time onwards.63 The fact that usually a guesting of a tribe was recorded only once might signify a fixation of certain contrac- tual relations, which had not to be reaffirmed thereafter. Only when a tribe changed its status from that of a “guest” to one of either a rival or a member of the zhuhou consociation, this might be recorded.64 In particular, the Western Rong were the only ones strong enough to break peaceful relations at every occasion and not fall to the level of dependency after the counteractions of the Mid- dle Kingdom. Therefore they reaffirmed their status as “guests” several times during the whole history of the mutual rivalry.

61 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 208-9. Offering hospitality in turn secured future immunity for the host. Not offering hospitality, acting not appropriately while receiving a guest, or harming a guest could cause hostility. 62 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 226. 63 The Weizi zhi ming 微子之命 chapter implies such model of hospitality. King Cheng (1042/35–1006) addresses the descendant of the recently ousted royal house of Shang-Yin in his speech as follows: “Eldest son of the king of Yin, in accordance with the statutes of antiquity, that the honouring of the virtuous belongs to their descendants who resem- ble them in worth, do you continue the line of the kings your ancestors, cultivating their ceremonies and taking care of their various relics. Be a guest (bin 賓) also in our royal house (wang jia 王家), enjoying the prosperity of our kingdom, for ever and ever without end” (cf. [Old text] Shang shu in Gu zhu shisan jing, p. 45; Engl. transl.: Legge 1872, Vol. III, p. 376). However, this chapter exists only in the Old Text Book of History, and was probably forged during the Jin dynasty (cf. Shaughnessy, 1993, pp. 378-9). 64 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 240.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 94 Maria Khayutina

VI.5 Hospitality vs. Hostility: “Hostipitality”65 A successful campaign against one particular tribe might stimulate some related or unrelated tribes to send their representatives “to guest” with the King of the Middle, probably in order to prevent a military intervention against them. For example, the BA states that Shang king Wu Ding went on to “punish” (fa) the Guifang 鬼方 tribe in his 32nd year. Two years after “the King’s army conquered the Guifang, the Di [and] Qiang came to guest”.66 This latter campaign was directed against a tribe of neither Yi nor Rong affiliation.67 This probably explains why, unlike the Western Rong, the Gui- fang did not become a subject of hospitality relations after being conquered by Wu Ding. But the Di and Qiang, both belonging to the Rong group, hastened in this connection to “come to guest” for the second time, after their first “guesting” at Cheng Tang’s court at the dawn of Shang statehood. This account, which shows the interrelation between hostility against one tribe and hospitality towards another one finds corroboration in authentic epigraphic documents. The three-year long campaign against Guifang actually took place during the reign of Wu Ding, which is confirmed by oracle bone inscriptions.68 Another large “corrective” campaign (zheng) is documented by an inscription on the Xiao Yu ding 小盂鼎 bronze tripod. In 25th year of Zhou king Kang (1005/03–978) the Zhou army under the command of general Yu 盂 inflicted a severe defeat upon the Guifang.69 Yu composed and ordered to cast a sacrificial vessel with an inscription which represents a unique record of the guests’ participation in Zhou celebration of a victory over a foreign tribe.70 This ceremony took place in the Zhou palace. The duo jun 多君, (“numerous lords”) – the rulers of domains and members of the Zhou consociation – came to take part in a wine feast. The king entered the ancestral temple. The bang bin 邦賓 (“guests of the state”), “respecting their parade order, assumed their place in the western part of the court, all facing the east”.71 Then the trium- phator 盂 Yu entered through the southern gate and reported his achievements.72 After the king had appraised Yu’s merits, the captive Guifang chiefs were executed (apparently before the eyes of the whole assembly), and Yu entered the temple gate and sacrificed the ears of enemies, killed during the campaign. Yu then reported the merits of other zhuhou who followed him in this campaign,

65 Derrida, Jacques: “Hostipitality” in: Derrida, Jacques, Gil Andijar (transl., ed.), Acts of Religion. New York: Routledge, 2001, pp. 356-420. 66 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 225. 67 According to the Jin shu, the Guifang of the Shang-Yin period was the same tribe as the Xianyun during the Zhou and the Xiongnu during the Han periods (cf. Jin shu, Xiongnu liezhuan, p. 2548). The Jin shu thus assigned them to the Northern foreigners Di. However, according to the Hou Han shu, the Guifang were Smaller Man (cf. Hou Han shu, Yan Zhu lie zhuan, p. 2784). The JBZSJN says that when campaigning against the Guifang, Wu Ding had his camp in Jing, the place inhabited by Man peoples (cf. JBZSJN, p. 225-6, and, e. g. Shi ji, Wu Tai-bo shi jia, p. 1445-46). Chen Mengjia concluded upon the analysis of Shang-Yin oracle bone inscriptions that the Guifang were possibly the Northern Man (cf. Chen Mengjia, Xi Zhou niandai kao [Study of Western Zhou chronology]. Shanghai: Shangwu, 1955, p. 214). 68 Cf. Chen Mengjia 1956, p. 274. 69 Records of the war against the Guifang and the guesting of neighboring tribes in the BA allow for suggestion that its authors not simply invented historical events, but were referring to some real historical memories, albeit without a clear knowledge of their chronological sequence. Or could it be another incorrect placement of a bamboo strip? 70 Unfortunately, the substance of the inscription is damaged, and almost every sentence contains unreadable lacunae. Therefore, some details of this ceremony remain unclear. 71 Cf. Guo Moruo, Liang Zhou jinwenci daxi (hereinafter LZJW). Beijing, 1957. Vol. VII, p. 35. 72 During the two successive campaigns against the Guifang, Yu captured three chiefs of this tribe, cut off 5,049 ears, took more than thirteen thousand captives, a few hundred horses, more than a hundred chariots, 355 cows and 38 sheep.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 95 and the king offered a feast for the zhuhou and the guests.73 Then wine was offered for the Zhou grandees, and the king entered the temple again, but this time the guests of the state did not partici- pate in the libation ritual. The king performed sacrifices to the spirits of the former kings Wen, Wu and Cheng. After this, wine was offered again, and the bang bin were also allowed to partake. Then the king ordered Yu to display the captured trophies. The celebration continued on the next day with a wine ceremony for the daifu 大夫, the higher officials of the state. The guests again took part and were treated to wine.74 The “guests” mentioned in this inscription and clearly distinguished from the Zhou lords and officials, were plausibly leaders of some foreign tribes. Probably, it might be Yu’s initiative to summon the Rong “guests” to this manifestation of power in order to “educate” them and keep them in peace.75 In his “reportage” Yu paid special attention to the positioning of celebrants, their movements around the place of the ceremony, their participation or non-participation in one or another ritual procedure. Obviously, each of these details was full of symbolic meaning for the attendants or readers of Yu’s inscription. Evidently, this happening was played upon the scenario envisaged at the Zhou court. On the one hand, it is plausible that the inviting of guests to this ceremony might be regarded as proof that Zhou was seen as a center of political power by the neighboring tribes and the manifestation of success in external policies. On the other hand, the right to come nigh unto this center might be appreciated as a favor offered to the foreigners. Admission inside the royal palace but not further than a certain point, permission to take part in some rituals but exclusion from the others clearly demonstrated a differentiation between the “hosts” – the Zhou triumpha- tors, – and the “guests” from the foreign tribes. The foreigners were shown their subordinate position in the hierarchy of political relations, centered in the Zhou. For the Zhou policymakers it was a manifestation of the authority to produce rules for the others, and in particular, of the right “to choose, to elect, to filter, to select invited, visitors or guests”, i.e. of the Zhou sovereignty over its own realm and its dominant position in the surrounding world. The reception of foreigners as guests, anticipated by their military encounter with the future host, who “generously” offered his hospitality to a loser, demonstrates hospitality as a hierarchical type of cohesion. However, at the same time it reveals the conqueror’s recognition that the rival’s potential was not destroyed completely and that it should still be paid appropriate respect.

IV.6 Unequal reciprocity The relations of hospitality between the Kings of the Middle and the foreigners evidently were not supposed to be equally reciprocal. The BA contains only one example, when in the 26th year of Shang king Tai Wu the Western Rong came to guest, and after that the king sent Wang Meng with a counter-visit pin 聘 to the Western Rong.76 More commonly, however, reciprocity was unequal and “pre-paid”: no return visit from the king’s part was expected, but the visits of the “guests” at the court looked like a response to the king’s visit already made during his military intervention

73 Cf. Chen Mengjia 1955, p. 218. 74 This time they drank wine together with a certain zheng 征. The meaning of the last word, otherwise meaning “corrective campaign” in this context is not clear, but perhaps they were some top or mid-level participants of this expedition. 75 It is noteworthy that this description of such a triumphal ceremony is unique in the contemporary sources, and one may guess that Yu might be one of the first designers of such “hospitable” rituals almost in the sense of managing “public relations” in Western Zhou time. 76 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 220.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 96 Maria Khayutina within their lands. Not to return a visit was a prerogative of the mighty, while the opposite might be symbolic of political weakness. Witnessed for instance is a counter-visit pin paid to the Western Rong, which is recorded for the reign of the last Western Zhou king You. In his 9th year, the former Zhou ally Shenhou 申侯 offered the locality Kui as a “greeting present” (pin) to the Western Rong.77 However, this happened in a time when actual roles of “hosts” and “guests” in the West of the Zhou state had already changed their order.78 The description of this event in terms of hospitality probably added to the general image of degradation and weakness of the Zhou house. Few other cases in which the kings interchanged roles of “host” and “guest” with their subordinates plausibly symbolised their decay and the raise of a new sovereign. Shang chieftain Liu, the future King Chengtang, attended the audience given by the last Xia king Jie, and was imprisoned. When he was released the following year, the zhuhou followed him and came to guest to the Shang.79 A few years later the Shang conquered the Xia. Noteworthy is that this was one of the only two examples, when the zhuhou were referred to as “guests” in the BA.80 This probably signified their acknowledgment of a new leader, who they still could regard as a foreigner, and not as a full- fledged sovereign. On the dawn of the Shang dynasty, shortly after the Duke of Zhou, Ji Li, father of the future King Wen, attended the audience chao given by the last Shang king,81 his descendants first usurped the king’s right to host the audiences,82 and then occupied the royal throne.83

IV.7 Audiences and Assemblies The application of hospitality as a model of communication with foreigners, probably, may explain, why zhuhou normally were not referred to as “guests”, neither relating to Zhou kings nor to each other. It is noteworthy that the Chunqiu 春秋 (the “Springs and Autumns” Annals), which covers a shorter period of Eastern Zhou history, similarly avoided using the term bin while referring to visits of zhuhou at one another.84

77 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 259. 78 Western Rong regularly attacked Zhou during the reigns of King Xuan (827–782 BC) and of King You (781–772 BC) until they finally invaded the Western Zhou capital and killed King You in 772 BC. 79 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 244. 80 The first mention of zhuhou as guests was recorded during the reign of Jie’s father Fa: “Zhuhou guested at the King’s gates. After that they guarded the defensive walls [and gathered at the] Shangchi for an assembly (hui). All the foreigners (zhu yi) came and danced” (cf. JBZSJN, p. 242). As the location suggests, the zhuhou guested with the king personally, different from their guesting at the Shang as at the ethno-political entity. However, the context of this passage is not clear and can not be interpreted upon any other sources. 81 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 228. 82 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 231. 83 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 236. 84 The Chunqiu uses a word pin, Old Chinese ping (Ulving 1997, p. 79) – “to visit” instead. However, the Zuozhuan widely uses the terms bin and ke (“guest”) referring to the envoys of the foreign states, but not to their rulers. I would propose the following explanation of this situation: the rulers were not simply individuals, but personified their states, which officially were parts of the Zhou kingdom, and belonged to the common cultural space, not to say that many of them were married to each other’s relatives. Therefore, they did not perceive each other as foreign. Moreover, as zhuhou they led communication on the equal footing, while hospitality became an hierarchical type of communication. Thus, usage of the terms bin or ke was not politically correct. The envoys, albeit also representing their states, were called “guests” while referred to individually, e.g. in connection to their personal actions or statements. Thus, they were regarded as individual “guests” in front of the structure of a higher level, i.e. other state.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 97

On the other hand, the tribes who came as “guests” did not become subjects in the same direct hierarchical subordination to the kings as the zhuhou and dependent tribes. This kind of subordination manifested itself in the participation of the last ones in audiences chao and assemblies hui. The usual subjects of the audiences chao, according to the BA, were zhuhou collectively, the individual members of the Chinese consociation, called by their domain name and hereditary title gong, hou, or zi, as well as the representatives of foreign tribes who recognized the sovereignty of the king and who were called by their ethnonym and defined as shi (“tribe”). The audiences represented a strictly hierarchical type of communication between the sovereign and his subordinates which was manifested in the bestowal (ci 錫) of an “order” (ming 命). After a tribe had first sent representatives to the Middle Kingdom as “guests”, they could be soon invited again to attend an audience chao. According to the BA, representatives of the Sushen tribe first came to guest at Zhou king Wu (1049/45–1043), and a dozen of years later his son, King Cheng (1042/40/35–1006), called them to an audience.85 This time the king commended (shi 使) the Earl of Rong to bestow (ci) on the Sushen the order (ming) that probably signified its admission to membership of the Zhou consociation.86 The audiences are well documented by the inscriptions on ritual bronze vessels of the Western Zhou period. Usually their attendants were Zhou military or civil officials, or hereditary domain hold- ers. An inscription on the late Western Zhou Guai bo gui 乖伯簋 tureen, probably dating to the reign of Zhou king Xuan, provides a more rare example of the audience offered to a ruler of a small foreign state Mei 眉 located somewhere in the southwest of – and probably related to – the state of Chu.87 In the ninth year, ninth month, day jiayin the king ordered Duke Yi 益公 to go on a “corrective” campaign (zheng) against its ruler Mei Ao 眉敖.88 The rulers of Mei formerly called themselves wang 王 (“king”). This is indicative of the considerable level of independency of this state.89 Tang Lan, alluding to another subject, refers to the Mei Neng wang ding 眉能王鼎 inscription which he dates to the reign of Zhou king Mu (956/54–918) and which was probably produced by Ao’s forefather, who called himself “the Potent King of Mei, the guest (ke 客) of Zhou”.90 Although using a different term – ke instead of bin – this text probably refers to the same type of relationship between the Zhou and Mei as the “hospitality” represented in the BA. After becoming a “guest” of Zhou, Mei took on certain obli- gations to the “host”, and its failure to fulfil them caused the Zhou to “correct” the Mei. Duke Yi, sent by the king, “arrived and reported”. This probably means that a display of force was sufficient to convince Mei Ao to hurry up to “present [himself in an audience] and to offer

85 Edward Shaughnessy’s hypothesis about strip replacement in the BA suggests that the records of the 9th year of Zhou king Wu and the 15th year of Zhou king Cheng might be voluntarily changed off. In this case it would appear that the Sushen tribe first attended the audience chao, received the order, and later came again to guest. Shaughnessy that there should be “a subtle difference” between the terms lai chao and lai bin, “which must be significant”, but the significance of which he has no idea of how to it might be interpreted (cf. Shaughnessy 1986, p. 172). Unfortunately, this is the only example in the BA where the same tribe appears twice at meetings of different types. However, if my suggestions about hierarchy of meetings are correct, a guesting bin should logically precede the audience chao. The example of King Neng of Mei (see below) also suggests this sequence. If the editors of the BA, who might have replaced the strips, had the same representation of hospitality relations, they could have changed the word order as well. But the discussion of this possibility is too much speculative. 86 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 240. 87 Cf. Shirakawa Shizuka, Kinbun tsûhaku, No. 25, Kobe: Hakutsuru bijuzukan, 1969, repr. 1992, p. 285-287. 88 Cf. LZJW, p. 147. 89 This sacrificial vessel was produced in the honor of the former ruler, the Martial King Guaiji (cf. LZJW, p. 147). 90 Cf. Tang Lan, “Lue lun Xi-Zhou Weishi jiazu yaozang tongqiqun de zhongyao yiyi”, in: Wenwu No. 3, 1978, p. 21.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 98 Maria Khayutina tribute”.91 The audience offered to him was a typical chao ceremony. With no rhetoric of hospitality, Mei Ao acknowledged his subordination to the power of the Zhou king. The King bestowed on him a badger coat and addressed him in his speech as Earl (bo 伯) Guai. Thus, a recently independent or semi-independent ruler who used to call himself a “king” in his small kingdom, after being received at the Zhou court according to the chao ritual, suddenly found himself inscribed in the Zhou hierarchy and reverently prayed to receive “eternal orders” (ming) from his new sovereign. According to the BA, the hui assemblies gathered only zhuhou, usually when their joint effort was required to counter a current crisis (a war). They represented the most direct hierarchical form of communication (Scheme XII). Unlike the bin and chao meetings, where visitors came (lai) voluntarily, the initiative to gather the hui assemblies had to be taken by a king or by a leader among the rulers of the Eastern Zhou period.92 Nonattendance or even coming late to the assembly might cost one’s life93 or extermination of the whole ethno-political unit. Thus, in the 11th year of the last Xia ruler, an assembly in Nai was recorded. A representative of the Youmin clan 有緡氏 fled and returned back home. As a result Youmin was exterminated.94

XII king bin

chao

hui

Foreigners might also attend the assembly, but only as guests (bin). The chronicle of King Cheng’s 25th year records a great assembly of zhuhou in the Eastern capital, where foreigners of the four quarters of the world (si yi) came to guest (lai bin).95 This also suggests that they were not perceived as subjects of the direct subordination to the royal court.

V Hospitality – the Means of Building and Affirmation of the Sovereignty The corroboration of some visit-reception representations and practices form the authentic sources allows believing that the BA image of Western Zhou is to a great extent realistic. It is plausible that its authors had access to some court documents, or at least that the oral history conserved the memories of this period without great damages. What of the previous epochs, it appears that the BA composers extrapolated to them their more or less adequate knowledge of Western Zhou, bas- ing on any hard evidences. However, one should not evaluate their work as a deliberate falsification of historical truth. The absence of concrete evidence about pre-Zhou epochs left enough space for speculation and guesses to Warring States literati. The social and political norms of the Western Zhou seemed already enough ancient to them, so that they might sincerely believe that the familiar social and political norms were

91 Cf. LZJW, p. 147, Engl. transl. by Shaughnessy, Edward L., Sources of Western Zhou History. Inscribed Bronze Vessels. Berkeley, Los Angeles, Oxford: University of California Press, 1991, p. 172, 92 There are, however, few records in the Eastern Zhou part of the BA, which employ the term hui in the meaning “meeting”, referring to individual meetings between two or several leaders of states. 93 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 201. 94 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 243. 95 Cf. JBZSJN, p. 241.

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 Host-guest opposition as a model of geo-political relations in pre-imperial China 99 almost the same from the beginning of time. Therefore they probably tried to systematize historical memories and mythological information about the remote antiquity in terms of their own time. The BA was created approximately at the same time as the “Yao dian” 堯典 and “Shun dian” 舜典 chapters of the “Book of History”.96 Their authors drew a general image of accomplishments of the legendary emperors and largely quoted their speeches, while the composers of the BA created an appear- ance of the “documentary”, a chronological record of concrete instances of ancient history. The introduction of the “concrete” dates, names and ethnonyms allowed for “visualization” of the history of state-building, military achievements and diplomatic relations. The fact that the authors of both texts dated the first offers of hospitality to the most remote times demonstrates their solidarity upon regard- ing it as a substantial component of the state-building and formation of the geo-political structure. Here an observation by Jacques Derrida is appropriate: “the constant collision between traditional hospitality, hospitality in the common sense, and power is such that for the host, i.e. the one who receives, the power in its ultimateness is to know of the necessity to choose, to elect, to filter, to select his invited, his visitors or his guests, those to whom he decides to offer asylum, the right of visit or hospitality. There is no hospitality in the classical sense without the sovereignty of the self (soi) over the “at oneself” (le chez-soi), […] which cannot be exercised except through filtering, choosing, as well as excluding and using violence”.97 Following Derrida’s line of reasoning, the right of exercising hospitality and choosing its forms and methods constitutes sovereignty per se. This conception is very close to the representation of hospitality, which may be retraced in a number of sources starting from the Eastern Zhou and later on.98 The ability of a ruler to maintain the control over the country to a great extent manifested in his ability to summon his subordinates to the court and to make them fulfill appropriate duties, including the so-called bin fu 賓服 “duties of guests”.99 The BA shed some light on what constituted the duty of hospitality and how it served the need of exercising authority. As can be deduced from the analysis given above, the assignment of the roles of “host” and “guests” to the subjects of geo-political relations according to the BA had a multi-functional application. The Middle Kingdom, centered in the ruling dynasty, was represented as a “host” for “guests” from the foreign and non-associated political entities. This served to conceptualize the sovereignty of the Kings of the Middle over the land and their predominance over neighbors, who were forced to attend the court as “guests” and to deliver a tribute. On the other hand, the status of “guests” distinguished autonomous subjects of external policy of the Middle Kingdom from the

96 Cf. Shaughnessy, Edward L.: “Shang shu”, in: Loewe 1993, pp. 376-389, p. 378. 97 Derrida 1997, p. 53, transl. by the author of this paper. 98 For example, the Zuo zhuan, 18th year of Duke Wen, states: “When Shun served Yao, he offered hospitality at the four gates, expelled the four malicious clans, Hundun, Qiongqi, Taowu and Taotie, casting them out to the four distant regions. […] As a result, when Yao passed away, the All-under-Heaven was unanimous and with the consent in heart revered Shun. […] Therefore it is said that when hospitality is offered at the four gates, the four gates (i.e. those, who come to guest from the four part of the world – M. Kh) are obedient, and there are no malicious people” (Chunqiu Zuo zhuan zhu, Vol. 2, p. 642). It is noteworthy that hospitality towards the loyal on the one hand, and exclusion of the unwanted are represented as complementary means in the process of sovereignty affirmation. 99 Zhuangzi, chapter “Shuo jian” states: The sword of zhuhou “has wise and brave men for its point, men of purity and integrity for its blade, men of worth and goodness for its spine, men of loyalty and sageliness for its swordguard, he- roes and prodigies for its hilt. […] In the middle realm it brings harmony to the wills of people and peace to the four directions. This sword, once put into use, is like crash of a thunderbolt: none within the four borders of the state will fail to fulfill the duties of guests (bin fu) and to obey and follow the orders of the ruler” (Zhuangzi jishi, p. 1022. Engl. trans. partly after Watson, Burton (trans.): Chuang Tzu. New York: Columbia University Press, 1964, p. 343).

OE 43 (2002), 1/2 100 Maria Khayutina directly subordinated members of the Middle consociation. However, not every autonomous foreign entity, but probably only politically and culturally close ones could be received as “guests”. Coming to the court of the king also served as a manifestation of subordination within the Middle consociation. However, its members and associates were not received as “guests” by the king, but attended chao audiences in order to express their fidelity and to receive orders. Hui assemblies only gathered the members of the Middle consociation (the zhuhou). Only in moments of extraordinary weakness of the royal power, or before turnovers of dynasties, could the zhuhou be received as “guests” by a king or a pretender. The ability of the central power to select and impose specific forms of “hospitality” upon its subjects, associates, and dependents was appreciated as one of the most important instruments of constructing and representing sovereignty. This is manifested the most dramatically in the BA account of mythological Emperors’ epoch, who were said to receive at their courts the most powerful and marvelous guests from the most distant quarters of the world, as well as perhaps of the over- and underworld. Most of the Warring States sources, however, mention the concept bin fu usually in a negative context, regretting that the kingship is now degraded and “nobody fulfills the duties of guests”.100 The same vision is characteristic of the BA image of the geo-political development in the Middle Kingdom. While guestings of foreigners were dated there to the most remote mythological antiquity, no single guesting was recorded during the whole Eastern Zhou period. One might suppose that offering hospitality to the foreigners was a prerogative of the sovereign of the All-under- Heaven, while powerless kings of the Eastern Zhou period could not be the true hosts in their own state, but rather assumed the position of guests themselves.101 The rulers of feudal states did not attain the same level of authority as Western Zhou kings, nor were they able to effectively control foreign peoples, who hardly enjoyed their status of guests. The decreasing density of “positive” authority confirming events from the beginning to the end of the text demonstrates the Bamboo Annals as a to a great extent “systematizing” ideological and didactic composition, where idealized time of early sovereigns was implicitly opposed to the time of decentralization and instability of its creation.

100 Guo yu, “The Speeches of Chu” chapter, states: “If the unquiet people could be taught and instructed, would it then be possible that the Man, Yi, Rong and Di do not come to guest (bin) for such a long time, so that the Middle Kingdom cannot make use of them?” (Guo yu, Vol. II, p. 527). 101 Guanzi 管子, juan 76, chapter “Shan zhi shu” represents a dialogue between Duke Huan of Qi and Guanzi. Duke Huan inquires “Formerly, when the men of Zhou possessed the All-under-Heaven, all the lords executed the duties of guests (bin fu). Their reputation and instructions penetrated everywhere in the realm. But [the control eventually] was seized by their subordinates. What is the reason?” Guan Zhong provides an economical explanation and ex- presses about the ability of the king to control the situation: “The Son of Heaven behaves as a guest (ke 客). Albeit he issues orders at the proper times, […] he lost his power.” (Guanzi quan shu. Xie Zaofan, Zhu Yingping (ed.). Guizhou: Guizhou renmin chubanshe, year n/a, p. 898.)

OE 43 (2002), 1/2